Patna High Court
Pankaj UpadhyayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted as the petitioner is involved in a serious kidnapping for ransom and the trial is ongoing, thereby upholding the earlier denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Upadhyay, was charged under Sections 364A and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act for kidnapping a victim and demanding a Rs. 5 lakh ransom. He sought regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail application was rejected. The petitioner argued innocence, claimed the main accusation was against a co‑accused, and pointed to trial delays with only one of six witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the kidnapping and the involvement of arms offences. Citing the Supreme Court decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539) and the gravity of the offence, the court refused to grant bail, upheld the earlier order, and directed the police to ensure witness attendance, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply if the trial is further delayed.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused of kidnapping for ransom and arms offences given the seriousness of the crime.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be revisited in view of trial delays and the bail granted to a co‑accused.
- How the Supreme Court precedent X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) applies to the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑Ba), 26, 35
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 364A, 411
Subjects
- kidnapping
- ransom
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26601 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-542 Year-2023 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Pankaj Upadhyay S/O Shiv Kishore Upadhyay @ Shiv Kishor Upadhyay R/O
Vill.- Chhotaki Nainijore, P.s.- Nainijore, Dist.- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Basanth Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Abhay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant
of regular bail in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 542 of
2023 registered for the offence under Sections 364(A), 411 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of Arms
Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected
vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 60533 of
2024 which reads as under:-
Heard the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 542 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 364(A)/411 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a, 26 & 35
of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26601 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
3. The petitioner and others are accused of
kidnapping the victim and demanding Rs. 5 Lakhs as
ransom.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. It is further submitted that the
name of this petitioner has surfaced in the confessional
statement of co-accused namely Ayush. In this case, all
the victims have given their statements under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. Jitendra Pathak, one of the victims,
has stated that Kuldeep arrived with seven persons and
kidnapped him. He has stated that Ramakant Ojha has
told his friends that if anybody comes, they would kill
him. Admittedly, Rs. 75,000/- was received in the bank
account of Kuldeep. It is also submitted that the main
thrust of the allegation is against Kuldeep. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
09.04.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is
involved in the kidnapping of the victim for ransom,
this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for regular
bail stands rejected.
3. It has been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and only
one out of six witnesses has been examined. Learned Senior
Counsel submits since the trial is being delayed, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26601 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
deserves bail and as one co-accused has already been granted
bail, the petitioner should also be released upon completion of
the examination of the witnesses.
4. Considering the gravity of offence, the fact that the
trial is continuing and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again
with liberty to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for
bail, if the trial is delayed by the prosecution.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur is directed
to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated through
FAX or e-mail to the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur for its
compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.